DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 11 and 20 have been amended. Claim 5 has been/remains canceled. Claims 1-4 and 6-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on page 8-11 of the remark filed on 01/20/2026, on the newly amended limitations of independent Claims 1: “executing a second mechanism configured to use probabilistic analysis of node preferences to detect the blockchain network has reached a finalized state by polling subsets of the nodes in a series of polling rounds until a preset number of consecutive polls establish the preference as determined by the first mechanism, wherein a preference for each of the consecutive polls is established when at least a second threshold value agree on the selection;;”, arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pages 9-10 that the cited references fail to teach executing a second mechanism configured to use probabilistic analysis of node preferences to detect the blockchain network has reached a finalized state by polling subsets of the nodes in a series of polling rounds until a preset number of consecutive polls establish the preference as determined by the first mechanism, wherein a preference for each of the consecutive polls is established when at least a second threshold value agree on the selection. Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Christidis teaches on Par.(0006-0008) a second mechanism or plurality of nodes in consensus executing voting. Christidis teaches on Par. (0029) a probabilistic analysis by detecting a number of consecutive good votes and on Par. (0024, 0035 and 0040) describing a preset number of consecutive polls or predetermined number of votes is equal to a threshold. Christidis teaches on Par. (0018-0020) a selection by polling or consecutive votes by nodes. Examiner understands the Applicants perspective cited on page 9 that address a sequence of polling rounds and on page 10 citing Christidis is directed to individual validators that should be sanctioned whereas the present application is a blockchain network detection where decision has been finalized. Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Christidis teaches on Par. (0022) a consecutive or sequence of voting rounds “every consensus round [..] votes all of the other validator nodes 302 with the consensus decision 310”. Christidis teaches a finalized selection or consensus decision based on probabilistic or number of votes being detected in blockchain. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 10-12 and 19-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210018953, hereinafter referred to as “Ford”) further in view of Christidis et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180101560, hereinafter referred to as “Christidis”)
In regards to Claim 1, Ford teaches a computer-implemented method for implementing consensus protocols, the method comprising: (Par. (0006); consensus protocol methods)
executing a first mechanism configured to determine a preference, from among one or more choices, for nodes in a blockchain network by polling a subset of nodes, (Par. (0062-0064) determine a preference from one or more choices (each node chooses the most fit proposal based on metric value) based on a first threshold value (threshold witnessed by nodes), (Par. (0100-0102); based on a first threshold value of the nodes (coordinate and meet threshold number of nodes)), (Par. (0169-0171); nodes choose maximum fir proposal based on threshold condition and consensus corresponding to nodes choices), (Par. (0316); nodes make a choice for a proposal and a decision)
wherein the preference is established when at least a first threshold value of the nodes in the subset of nodes agree on a selection of one of the one or more choices; (Par. (0102-0105); subset of participant nodes with received threshold)), (Par. (0189, 0218-0221)); nodes agreeing and confirming based on threshold and majority ))
finalizing a consensus decision of the blockchain network based on the finalized selection detected by the second mechanism. (Par. (0316); node accepts proposal and decision is committed based on consensus protocols), (Par. (0068-0069); finalize a decision (validate a decision and recording), (Par. (0198); committing a decision for each proposal and associated consensus round), (Par. (0215-0218); finalized selection detected by the second mechanism (different nodes/ separately considering final decision; nodes decide on final decision then broadcasted and returned decision is chosen))
Ford does not explicitly teach executing a second mechanism configured to: use probabilistic analysis of node preferences to detect the blockchain network has reached a finalized state by polling subsets of the nodes in a series of polling rounds until a preset number of consecutive polls establish the preference as determined by the first mechanism, wherein a preference for each of the consecutive polls is established when at least a second threshold value agree on the selection: and
Wherein Christidis teaches executing a second mechanism configured to: (Par. (0006-0008); second mechanism (plurality of nodes corresponding to consensus and voting))
use probabilistic analysis of node preferences to detect the blockchain network has reached a finalized state by polling subsets of the nodes in a series of polling rounds until a preset number of consecutive polls establish the preference as determined by the first mechanism, (Par. (0029); detecting/validating a number of consecutive good votes for final consensus decision ), (Par. (0024, 0035, 0040 ); predetermined number of votes is equal, above or below threshold value), (Par. (0018-0020); finalized the selection by polling subset of nodes (plurality of nodes consistently voting), (Par. (0022 and 0029); to detect the blockchain network has reached a finalized state (consensus decision is met after polling subsets (tally and comparing votes) in a series of polling rounds (every consensus round corresponding to consecutive votes))
wherein a preference for each of the consecutive polls is established when at least a second threshold value agree on the selection: and (Par. (0025); second threshold), (Par. (0029-0032); preference of consecutive good votes are tallied and consensus rounds of votes are compared to threshold number of votes being made to determine consensus decision)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford to incorporate the teaching of Christidis to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies associated with polling/elections, with the motivation protecting the integrity of the blockchain with confirmed transactions associated with consensus and voting to provide feedback to users and securely protected the data based on specific voting/polling criteria. (Christidis Par. (0003-0007))
In regards to Claim 2, the combination of Ford and Christidis teach the method of claim 1, Ford further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising initializing the one or more choices by gossiping the one or more choices to the nodes in the blockchain network. (Par. (0091); gossiping proposals and confirmations to all nodes in blockchain), (Par. (0038-0039); propose gossip, decide corresponding to consensus of blockchain), (Par. (0183-0184); choosing proposals and gossiping to majority of nodes)
In regards to Claim 10, the combination of Ford and Christidis teach the method of claim 1, Ford further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein executing the second mechanism configured to detect that the blockchain network has decided further comprises: (Par. (0316); node accepts proposal and decision is committed based on consensus protocols), (Par. (0068-0069); finalize a decision (validate a decision and recording), (Par. (0198); committing a decision for each proposal and associated consensus round)
randomly sampling a subset of the nodes; and (Par. (0160-0161); random selection of nodes in blockchain and randomly selection neighbor)
detecting that the blockchain network has decided based on at least the subset indicating a selected preference reaching the second threshold value. (Par. (0069); node decision relayed corresponding to threshold), (Par. (0221); nodes decides corresponding to threshold witnessed by majority), (Par. (0316); multiple node decisions based on time threshold), (Par. (0338-0339); second threshold value threshold time layers)
In regards to Claim 11, Ford teaches a system for implementing consensus protocols, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory comprising instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to: (Par. (0006); consensus protocol) (Par. (0432-0433); storage medium with processors and memory)
determine, in a first mechanism of a consensus protocol, a preference, from one or more choices, for nodes in a blockchain network by polling a subset of nodes (Par. (0062-0064) determine a preference from one or more choices (each node chooses the most fit proposal based on metric value) based on a first threshold value (threshold witnessed by nodes), (Par. (0100-0102); based on a first threshold value of the nodes (coordinate and meet threshold number of nodes)), (Par. (0169-0171); nodes choose maximum fir proposal based on threshold condition and consensus corresponding to nodes choices), (Par. (0316); nodes make a choice for a proposal and a decision)
wherein the preference is established when at least a first threshold value of the nodes in the subset of nodes agree on a selection of one of the one or more choices; (Par. (0102-0105); subset of participant nodes with received threshold)), (Par. (0189, 0218-0221)); nodes agreeing and confirming based on threshold and majority ))
finalizing a consensus decision of the blockchain network based on the finalized selection detected by the second mechanism. (Par. (0316); node accepts proposal and decision is committed based on consensus protocols), (Par. (0068-0069); finalize a decision (validate a decision and recording), (Par. (0198); committing a decision for each proposal and associated consensus round), (Par. (0215-0218); finalized selection detected by the second mechanism (different nodes/ separately considering final decision; nodes decide on final decision then broadcasted and returned decision is chosen))
Ford does not explicitly teach detect, in a second mechanism of the consensus protocol using probabilistic analysis of node preferences, the blockchain network has reached a finalized state by polling subsets of the nodes in a series of polling rounds until a preset number of consecutive polls establish the preference as determined by the first mechanism, wherein a preference for each of the consecutive polls is established when at least a second threshold value agree on the selection; and
Wherein Christidis teaches detect, in a second mechanism of the consensus protocol using probabilistic analysis of node preferences, the blockchain network has reached a finalized state by polling subsets of the nodes in a series of polling rounds until a preset number of consecutive polls establish the preference as determined by the first mechanism, (Par. (0006-0008); second mechanism (plurality of nodes corresponding to consensus and voting)) (Par. (0029); detecting/validating a number of consecutive good votes for final consensus decision ), (Par. (0024, 0035, 0040 ); predetermined number of votes is equal, above or below threshold value), (Par. (0018-0020); finalized the selection by polling subset of nodes (plurality of nodes consistently voting) (Par. (0022 and 0029); to detect the blockchain network has reached a finalized (consensus decision is met after polling subsets (tally and comparing votes) in a series of polling rounds (every consensus round corresponding to consecutive votes))
wherein a preference for each of the consecutive polls is established when at least a second threshold value agree on the selection; and (Par. (0025); second threshold), (Par. (0029-0032); preference of consecutive good votes are tallied and consensus rounds of votes are compared to threshold number of votes being made to determine consensus decision)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford to incorporate the teaching of Christidis to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies associated with polling/elections, with the motivation protecting the integrity of the blockchain with confirmed transactions associated with consensus and voting to provide feedback to users and securely protected the data based on specific voting/polling criteria. (Christidis Par. (0003-0007))
In regards to Claim 12, the combination of Ford and Christidis teach the system of claim 11, Ford further teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to initialize the one or more choices by gossiping the one or more choices to the nodes in the blockchain network. (Par. (0091); gossiping proposals and confirmations to all nodes in blockchain), (Par. (0038-0039); propose gossip, decide corresponding to consensus of blockchain), (Par. (0183-0184); choosing proposals and gossiping to majority of nodes)
In regards to Claim 19, the combination of Ford and Christidis teach the system of claim 11, Ford further teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: randomly sample a subset of the nodes; and (Par. (0160-0161); random selection of nodes in blockchain and randomly selection neighbor)
detect that the blockchain network has decided based on at least the subset indicating a selected preference reaching the second threshold value. (Par. (0069); node decision relayed corresponding to threshold), (Par. (0221); nodes decides corresponding to threshold witnessed by majority), (Par. (0316); multiple node decisions based on time threshold), (Par. (0338-0339); second threshold value threshold time layers)
In regards to Claim 20, claim 20 recites similar limitations to independent claim 11 and the teachings of Ford and Christidis address all the limitations discussed in independent claim 11 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds
Claims 3 and 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210018953, hereinafter referred to as “Ford”) and Christidis et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180101560, hereinafter referred to as “Christidis”) further in view of Huang et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210097059, hereinafter referred to as “Huang”)
In regards to Claim 3, the combination of Ford and Christidis teach the method of claim 1, Ford further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first threshold value and the second threshold value are distinct. (Par. (0203-0204); (collected threshold witnessed messages and collected threshold witnessed proposals that differ)
Ford and Christidis do not explicitly teach the first threshold value and the second threshold value corresponding to a number of the nodes required to define a quorum in a consensus protocol, and
Wherein Huang teaches the first threshold value and the second threshold value corresponding to a number of the nodes required to define a quorum in a consensus protocol, and (Par. (0020-0021); first and second threshold value (threshold of first round and threshold of second round corresponding to total of quorum members of computer nodes)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford and Christidis to incorporate the teaching of Huang to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies with consensus protocols using a threshold value for choices, with the motivation of implementing a threshold value corresponding to the selection using quorums to have an enhanced verification system and detect possible spoof, modified or forged entities by comparing against a preset value and in return assuring users in the blockchain that the consensus protocol will lead to a prevention of harm and vulnerabilities. (Huang Par. (0025))
In regards to Claim 13, the combination of Ford and Christidis do not explicitly teach the first threshold value and the second threshold value corresponding to a number of the nodes required to define a quorum in the consensus protocol.
Wherein Huang teaches the first threshold value and the second threshold value corresponding to a number of the nodes required to define a quorum in the consensus protocol. (Par. (0020-0021); first and second threshold value (threshold of first round and threshold of second round corresponding to total of quorum members of computer nodes)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford and Christidis to incorporate the teaching of Huang to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies with consensus protocols using a threshold value for choices, with the motivation of implementing a threshold value corresponding to the selection using quorums to have an enhanced verification system and detect possible spoof, modified or forged entities by comparing against a preset value and in return assuring users in the blockchain that the consensus protocol will lead to a prevention of harm and vulnerabilities. (Huang Par. (0025))
Claim 4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210018953, hereinafter referred to as “Ford”) and Christidis et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180101560, hereinafter referred to as “Christidis”) further in view of Ben-David et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20190318346, hereinafter referred to as “Ben-David”)
In regards to Claim 4, the combination of Ford and Christidis do not explicitly teach wherein the first threshold value of the first mechanism is equal to 51% and the second threshold value of the second mechanism is equal to 75%.
Wherein Ben-David teaches wherein the first threshold value of the first mechanism is equal to 51% and the second threshold value of the second mechanism is equal to 75%. (Par. (0116); first and second threshold value (maximum and minimum thresholds value), (Par. (0048-0049); threshold defined has 51% and 75% in blockchain corresponding to majority vote)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford and Christidis to incorporate the teaching of Ben-David to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies with consensus protocols using a threshold value for choices, with the motivation of having a specific value that needs to be met to further enhance the consensus protocol and allows nodes validating transaction to have a means of comparison in detecting values that do not meet the criteria and in return preventing the system from compromise, harm and error results of exchanges conducted. (Ben-David Par. (0012-0013))
Claims 6 and 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210018953, hereinafter referred to as “Ford”) and Christidis et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180101560, hereinafter referred to as “Christidis”) further in view of Shi et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200104293, hereinafter referred to as “Shi”)
In regards to Claim 6, the combination of Ford and Christidis do not explicitly teach switching, based on preferences of the nodes in the blockchain network reaching at least the first threshold value, the selection corresponding to at least one of the nodes of the blockchain network.
Wherein Shi teaches switching, based on preferences of the nodes in the blockchain network reaching at least the first threshold value, the selection corresponding to at least one of the nodes of the blockchain network. (Par. (0026); nodes replacing based on threshold number of voters a committee corresponding to a proposal and selection of committee)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford and Christidis to incorporate the teaching of Shi to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies with consensus protocols using a threshold value for choices, with the motivation of utilizing a switching or replacing of selection based on a threshold value the consensus protocol in the blockchain network has multiple facets and the versatile ability to redirect selection once a threshold value is met. This creates authentic values and creates trust in the network that agreeance will still be achieved even after threshold values are met. (Shi Par. (0004))
In regards to Claim 15, the combination of Ford and Christidis do not explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to switch, based on preferences of the nodes in the blockchain network reaching at least the first threshold value, the selection corresponding to at least one of the nodes of the blockchain network.
Wherein Shi teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to switch, based on preferences of the nodes in the blockchain network reaching at least the first threshold value, the selection corresponding to at least one of the nodes of the blockchain network. (Par. (0026); nodes replacing based on threshold number of voters a committee corresponding to a proposal and selection of committee), (Par. (0006); processor)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford and Christidis to incorporate the teaching of Shi to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies with consensus protocols using a threshold value for choices, with the motivation of utilizing a switching or replacing of selection based on a threshold value the consensus protocol in the blockchain network has multiple facets and the versatile ability to redirect selection once a threshold value is met. This creates authentic values and creates trust in the network that agreeance will still be achieved even after threshold values are met. (Shi Par. (0004))
Claims 7-8 and 16-17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210018953, hereinafter referred to as “Ford”) and Christidis et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180101560, hereinafter referred to as “Christidis”) further in view of Manevich et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210326352, hereinafter referred to as “Manevich”)
In regards to Claim 7, the combination of Ford and Christidis do not explicitly teach tracking a current state of the consensus decision of the blockchain network, and updating the current state based on preferences of the nodes.
Wherein Manevich teaches tracking a current state of the consensus decision of the blockchain network, and (Par. (0071); current state corresponding to proposal is verified and passed)
updating the current state based on preferences of the nodes. (Par. (0086); updating the proposal corresponding to current state)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford and Christidis to incorporate the teaching of Manevich to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies with consensus protocols using a threshold value for choices, with the motivation of updating a current state based on preferences and tracking the consensus associated with a majority for choices and decision to protect the blockchain from out-date or vulnerable nodes making decision. By having a cycling or updating of the state of choices, proposals, votes, decision users can be assured that a regulation is put into place and that all nodes have to agree. This further enhances the consensus protocol in the blockchain by adding various layers. (Manevich Par. (0037))
In regards to Claim 8, the combination of Ford and Christidis do not explicitly teach updating a node preference based on a majority choice selection in the blockchain network.
Wherein Manevich teaches updating a node preference based on a majority choice selection in the blockchain network. (Par. (0051) update a proposed change based on proof from majority of blockchain peers), (Par. (0050); majority of peers agreeing), (Par. (0059-0060); majority of nodes voting corresponding to updating the state)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford and Christidis to incorporate the teaching of Manevich to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies with consensus protocols using a threshold value for choices, with the motivation of updating a current state based on preferences and tracking the consensus associated with a majority for choices and decision to protect the blockchain from out-date or vulnerable nodes making decision. By having a cycling or updating of the state of choices, proposals, votes, decision users can be assured that a regulation is put into place and that all nodes have to agree. This further enhances the consensus protocol in the blockchain by adding various layers. (Manevich Par. (0072 and 0086))
In regards to Claim 16, the combination of Ford and Christidis do not explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to track a current state of the consensus decision of the blockchain network, and update the current state based on preferences of the nodes.
Wherein Manevich teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to track a current state of the consensus decision of the blockchain network, and (Par. (0003); processor) (Par. (0071); current state corresponding to proposal is verified and passed)
update the current state based on preferences of the nodes. (Par. (0086); updating the proposal corresponding to current state)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford and Christidis to incorporate the teaching of Manevich to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies with consensus protocols using a threshold value for choices, with the motivation of updating a current state based on preferences and tracking the consensus associated with a majority for choices and decision to protect the blockchain from out-date or vulnerable nodes making decision. By having a cycling or updating of the state of choices, proposals, votes, decision users can be assured that a regulation is put into place and that all nodes have to agree. This further enhances the consensus protocol in the blockchain by adding various layers. (Manevich Par. (0072 and 0086))
In regards to Claim 17, the combination of Ford and Christidis do not explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to update a node preference based on a majority choice selection in the blockchain network.
Wherein Manevich teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to update a node preference based on a majority choice selection in the blockchain network. (Par. (0051) update a proposed change based on proof from majority of blockchain peers), (Par. (0050); majority of peers agreeing), (Par. (0059-0060); majority of nodes voting corresponding to updating the state), (Par. (0002); processor)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford and Christidis to incorporate the teaching of Manevich to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies with consensus protocols using a threshold value for choices, with the motivation of updating a current state based on preferences and tracking the consensus associated with a majority for choices and decision to protect the blockchain from out-date or vulnerable nodes making decision. By having a cycling or updating of the state of choices, proposals, votes, decision users can be assured that a regulation is put into place and that all nodes have to agree. This further enhances the consensus protocol in the blockchain by adding various layers. (Manevich Par. (0072 and 0086))
Claims 9 and 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210018953, hereinafter referred to as “Ford”) and Christidis et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180101560, hereinafter referred to as “Christidis”) further in view of Matsuoka et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20230050045, hereinafter referred to as “Matsuoka”)
In regards to Claim 9, the combination of Ford and Christidis teach the method of claim 1, Ford further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein executing the first mechanism configured to determine the preference further comprises: (Par. (0062-0064) determine a preference from one or more choices (each node chooses the most fit proposal based on metric value) based on a first threshold value (threshold witnessed by nodes)
randomly sampling a subset of the nodes; (Par. (0160-0161); random selection of nodes in blockchain and randomly selection neighbor)
Ford and Christidis do not explicitly teach receiving responses from the subset indicating choice selections; and selecting the preference based on the responses reaching the first threshold value.
Wherein Matsuoka teaches receiving responses from the subset indicating choice selections; and (Par. (0218);receiving proposal responses), (Par. (0237); receiving response to set of proposals), (Par. (0076); indicating choice selection (set of proposals corresponding to acceptable options recommended and used by members)
selecting the preference based on the responses reaching the first threshold value. (Par. (0110); proposal option is selected corresponding to threshold percentage),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford and Christidis to incorporate the teaching of Matsuoka to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies with consensus protocols using a threshold value for choices, with the motivation of making a selection on choices, preferences proposals etc. based on responses. This creates positive feedback and allows users to make choices based on results. This creates a filtering system and in return enhances the consensus protocol of the blockchain. (Matsuoka Par. (0003 and 0045-00046))
In regards to Claim 18, the combination of Ford and Christidis teach the system of claim 11, Ford further teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: randomly sample a subset of the nodes; and (Par. (0160-0161); random selection of nodes in blockchain and randomly selection neighbor)
Ford and Christidis do not explicitly teach select the preference based on responses from the subset reaching the first threshold value.
Wherein Matsuoka teaches select the preference based on responses from the subset reaching the first threshold value. (Par. (0110); proposal option is selected corresponding to threshold percentage),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford and Christidis to incorporate the teaching of Matsuoka to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies with consensus protocols using a threshold value for choices, with the motivation of making a selection on choices, preferences proposals etc. based on responses. This creates positive feedback and allows users to make choices based on results. This creates a filtering system and in return enhances the consensus protocol of the blockchain, as recognized by the Abstract and throughout.
Claim 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210018953, hereinafter referred to as “Ford”), Christidis et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180101560, hereinafter referred to as “Christidis”) and Huang et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210097059, hereinafter referred to as “Huang”) further in view of Ben-David et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20190318346, hereinafter referred to as “Ben-David”)
In regards to Claim 14, the combination of Ford, Christidis and Huang do not explicitly teach wherein the first threshold value is equal to 51% and the second threshold value is equal to 75%.
Wherein Ben-David teaches wherein the first threshold value is equal to 51% and the second threshold value is equal to 75%. (Par. (0116); first and second threshold value (maximum and minimum thresholds value), (Par. (0048-0049); threshold defined has 51% and 75% in blockchain corresponding to majority vote)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ford, Christidis and Huang to incorporate the teaching of Ben-David to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies with consensus protocols using a threshold value for choices, with the motivation of having a specific value that needs to be met to further enhance the consensus protocol and allows nodes validating transaction to have a means of comparison in detecting values that do not meet the criteria and in return preventing the system from compromise, harm and error results of exchanges conducted. (Ben-David Par. (0012-0013))
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MOLLOY; Katharine (U.S Pub. No. 20240106650) “TRANSACTION SIGNATURE FLAGS”. Considered this reference because it addressed consecutive quorums and threshold values corresponding to consensus protocol.
Kachur; Sergey (U.S Pub. No. 20230252510) “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR BLOCKCHAIN-BASED INFORMATION SHARING”. Considered this application because it relates to multiple threshold values and on or more choices in blockchain network with quorums.
Zamani; Mahdi (U.S No. 11902456) “Blockchain Sharding With Adjustable Quorums”. Considered this application because it addressed threshold values in consensus blockchain associated with quorums.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN A HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3554. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-y.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2497 /ELENI A SHIFERAW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2497